Georgia's Election: A Fight for Democracy

On October 26th, 2024, Georgia faced a crucial election that set the stage for a choice between two opposing forces: pro-European and pro-Russian preferences. The stakes were high, and the atmosphere was charged. The current ruling party, the Georgian Dream Party, had proposed a controversial law that many viewed as a way to undermine foreign influence, which sparked protests across the country. This election was not just a vote; it was a chance for the people of Georgia to express their will and potentially change their government.

#The Controversial Law

Prior to the elections, the Georgian parliament, under the Georgian Dream Party, introduced a law called "On Transparency of Foreign Influence." This legislation was aimed at organizations that relied heavily on foreign funding. If an entity fell into this category, it had to register as one that served foreign interests. Many Georgians viewed this law as a way to stigmatize associations with Europe and America, as these two regions were primary sources of funding. The ruling party's move was seen as an attempt to align Georgia more closely with Russia and was compared to a similar law passed in Russia in 2012.

As protests erupted in the streets of Tbilisi and other cities, the government pressed on with the law. The international community closely monitored the situation, with many fearing that Georgia might become the next Belarus. The people of Georgia viewed the upcoming election as their only opportunity to change the government through a democratic process.

#Opposition and Election Preparations

The opposition parties saw this pre-election period as a vital time to train election observers. Each observer was viewed as a safeguard to protect votes from manipulation. For the first time, Georgia introduced an electronic voting system, which many hoped would reduce the chance of vote manipulation. The central body responsible for conducting elections in Georgia is the Central Election Commission (CEC), which organizes elections into districts and precincts.

Leading up to the election, several research firms conducted exit polls to gauge voter sentiment. However, these polls presented diverging results, leading to confusion about the actual support for various parties. One firm, Edison Research, has a history of conducting exit polls in Georgia, and their results on election night revealed a significant discrepancy compared to the final count by the CEC.

#Discrepancies in Exit Polls and Official Results

On election night, Edison Research reported that the Georgian Dream Party received a certain percentage of the votes that was drastically lower than what the CEC later announced. This marked a historical moment where exit polls and the official results were at odds, raising eyebrows and questions about the integrity of the process. In earlier elections, the firm had often found itself at odds with official counts, suggesting a troubling trend.

The stark contrast between the exit polls and the final results suggested something was amiss. For instance, in the 2016 and 2018 elections, similar discrepancies had emerged, wherein Edison’s predictions for the Georgian Dream Party fell significantly short of actual outcomes.

#Investigating Vote Manipulation

Given the concerns and the data discrepancies, a team decided to carry out a thorough investigation of the election results using computer simulations based on official CEC data. The goal was to recreate the election outcomes under the assumption that no manipulation occurred. By comparing the simulated results to the official outcomes, the team aimed to identify any potential irregularities.

The simulation involved replicating the voting process while ensuring that the Georgian Dream Party achieved the same overall vote count as recorded in the election. This approach allowed for a clearer view of how votes should have been distributed across precincts if everything had been above board.

#Analyzing Official Data

The first step in the analysis involved examining the official data and creating visual representations of the voting trends across precincts. A histogram was created to show the percentage of votes each party received, which helped in understanding how votes were distributed. The graphs revealed that the Georgian Dream Party had an unusually high number of votes in several precincts, raising suspicions of possible manipulation.

The analysis included examining voter turnout data, which indicated that certain precincts had more voters than were registered. In some cases, precincts with unknown registered voter counts reported high percentages of votes for the Georgian Dream Party, further feeding into the concern about vote integrity.

#The Simulation Process

To investigate these suspicions, a computer program was created to simulate the election results. The aim was to compare the official results with the simulated outcomes in a no-manipulation scenario. By doing so, researchers hoped to reveal discrepancies that would point to possible vote manipulation.

The simulation assigned a probability to each voter based on the official percentage of votes for the Georgian Dream Party. This setup allowed voters within precincts to be randomly assigned based on real-world demographics, leading to expected similarities across precincts.

Two main approaches were used for the simulation. The first kept the standard deviation constant across districts, while the second calculated it separately for each electoral district based on actual data. The results of both methods showed significant differences, suggesting anomalies in the actual election results.

#Findings from the Simulation

The results from the simulation indicated notable discrepancies. While the simulation expected a relatively consistent performance for the Georgian Dream Party across precincts, the actual results showed vast differences. In particular, the simulations found that the party should have received a larger share of votes in urban areas, yet the results appeared skewed.

From the simulations, the researchers calculated manipulated votes by comparing the expected distributions to the actual data. The results suggested a range of manipulated votes, with a significant number likely altering the election outcome.

#Implications of Findings

The findings indicated that a considerable number of votes were manipulated, leading to questions about the integrity of the election process. The research suggested that around 140,000 to 200,000 votes were likely manipulated, based on the various analysis approaches. This raised serious concerns about democracy in Georgia and the importance of transparent electoral processes.

The discrepancies were not just numbers on a page; they represented a larger issue of trust in the political system. Voter confidence is crucial in any democracy, and when that trust is undermined, the consequences can be severe.

#Understanding Voter Behavior

The research team also looked at voter behavior and the impact of the manipulated votes. It was posited that some individuals who would have otherwise participated in the elections may have opted out due to mistrust. Moreover, those votes that were misallocated could have significantly affected the political landscape, especially if opposition supporters were coerced or bribed.

This aspect highlights the ripple effects of election manipulation, where not only are votes taken away from candidates, but entire communities are disenfranchised. The document suggested that stolen votes did a double disservice to the opposition, intensifying the impact of electoral fraud.

#Conclusion

The investigation into the 2024 Georgian elections unveiled concerning evidence of manipulation. The analysis of official data and subsequent computer simulations revealed glaring discrepancies, indicating that the Georgian Dream Party likely benefited from a significant number of manipulated votes.

The situation faced by the people of Georgia is a reminder of the importance of safeguarding democracy. As citizens strive for a transparent and fair political process, it becomes critical to ensure that elections are conducted honestly and without interference.

The revelations from this election should serve as a wake-up call for not only voters in Georgia but also for people worldwide. Democracy is a collective effort, and it requires vigilance, transparency, and a commitment to the truth.